|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What do atheists think of death? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Recon3rd writes: Put what ever reason in front of the killing of another human you want, the question still remains the same, is it wrong to kill another human? If it's wrong, why? What is wrong with killing someone who is trying to kill you in self-defense? Can't you see that "is it wrong to kill another human?" is a question to which the only reasonable answer is "it depends on the circumstances." You also seem to be addressing this question to atheists, as if theists don't believe in killing other human beings, even though history and our present times show this to be absolutely wrong. Theists are remarkably good at making up reasons for killing others, and Gods are usually pretty violent and murderous beings, the God of the bible certainly being no exception. Atheists are probably less likely than theists to fly airplanes full of people into skyscrapers full of people because they would be less likely to be able to delude themselves that there's a reason for doing so. None of your questions have anything to do with the subject of this thread, which is about the attitude of atheists to life after death. This means that all of us who've replied to you have been off topic. If you want to discuss the morals of killing and how people of various philosophies decide who they can or cannot kill, then perhaps you ought to start a thread on the subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Recon3rd Member (Idle past 5842 days) Posts: 35 Joined: |
Recon said:
Put what ever reason in front of the killing of another human you want, the question still remains the same, is it wrong to kill another human? If it's wrong, why?
What is wrong with killing someone who is trying to kill you in self-defense? Can't you see that "is it wrong to kill another human?" is a question to which the only reasonable answer is "it depends on the circumstances." I live in Florida where we have a 'stand your ground' law which allowed the expansion of the 'castle doctrine' to include the outside of your house or your boat, car, motorcycle, bicycle....In other words we don't have to run from thugs we can stand our ground and defend. So, I personally don't find anything wrong with killing someone in self-defense. Besides self defense what other reason do you find it ok to kill another human.
You also seem to be addressing this question to atheists, as if theists don't believe in killing other human beings, even though history and our present times show this to be absolutely wrong. Theists are remarkably good at making up reasons for killing others, and Gods are usually pretty violent and murderous beings, the God of the bible certainly being no exception. I was addressing anyone who doesn't believe in God and I asked a simple question, I didn't say a thing about atheists killing anyone. So why bring up what a theist may believe?
Atheists are probably less likely than theists to fly airplanes full of people into skyscrapers full of people because they would be less likely to be able to delude themselves that there's a reason for doing so. Less likely but still likely to be deluded
None of your questions have anything to do with the subject of this thread, which is about the attitude of atheists to life after death. This means that all of us who've replied to you have been off topic. If you want to discuss the morals of killing and how people of various philosophies decide who they can or cannot kill, then perhaps you ought to start a thread on the subject.
I believe the topic for this thread is, What do atheists think of death, so asking questions about death isn't off topic. peace
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Recon3rd Member (Idle past 5842 days) Posts: 35 Joined: |
teen4christ-
To many of us, killing an animal for sport is not ok. In fact, I consider it downright immoral. But notice that it's the evangelical and other religious right that get the most kick out of sport hunting. I just find it ironic that it's always the evil liberal atheists that have fought for animal interests. To many, killing an animal for sport is ok. I have no problem with it. I just don't see the point.
If there is no God, human life is more important than other species because we say so. I'm sure when we finally make contact with another alien race, which ever race is more advance will say that its members' lives are more valuable than the other. We need not look far to see this, in fact. The Europeans did declare that the lives of white christians were more valuable than the native american heathens. Because we say so, who are we to say so? Why are humans so special and why is human life more important than other life?? When we finally make contact with an alien race Oh you mean like the little alien men people have supposedly have seen. Did you ever stop and wonder why the alien always resembles a human? If you're an evolutionist you can't believe this can you? History shows men have been killing each other as far back as history knows. Men use any excuse to kill other men.
You seem to imply that the reason it is wrong to murder another human being is because God says so. This is the mentality of a child. When I was little, my mommy forbid me to hit other kids. Back then, I couldn't understand why. But since my mommy threatened me with punishment, I never hit other kids. When I grew up, I began to realize that hitting other people was wrong in it self. I began to have principles. I guess you grew up in a white suburb all safe and secure because if you had grown up in place where you have to fight or hit others to survive it sure as hell is ok. Mommy threated you with punishment if you disobeyed her, if she had sat you down and explained why it was wrong would that have done the same thing for you or was it just the fear of the punishment? So what you learned as a child formed your principles or is it your mommy's principles that you learned?
Recon3rd, if the only reason you live a moral life is because God says so, you are effectively living like a child with a child's mentality. Real adults have principles. Real adults can see the difference between good and evil. Real moral adults don't need the threat of a vengeful God to live moral lives. Yet you needed the threat of mommy punishing you so you wouldn't hit other kids. How do you know what type of life I lead? Real adults have their own principles, not all real adults can distinguish good vs evil. Real moral adults is there such a thing when morality, as pointed out by the oncoming train, is subjective to each of us?
PS I speak as a believer. A believer in what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Recon3rd Member (Idle past 5842 days) Posts: 35 Joined: |
Chiroptera-
How about if there is a god and we did evolve from another species? What if there is a god and we didn't evolve from another species? Why does either of these two issues affect how we view killing another human, or killing another living organism? We're talking about the atheists and evolutionists who don't believe in god. "why does either of these two issues affect how we view killing another human, or killing another living organism?"Because if we all evolved from the same organism then all life is related isn't it? If all life is related then why would it be ok to kill one form over another form? peace
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
If all life is related then why would it be ok to kill one form over another form? I don't understand the connection. Just because all life is related, why would that mean it isn't ok to kill one form over another form? Why does being related preclude that? There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president. -- Kurt Vonnegut
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Recon3rd writes: I believe the topic for this thread is, What do atheists think of death, so asking questions about death isn't off topic. Read the original post. The topic is about what atheists think of their own deaths, and possibilities of existence after death. It isn't about the ethics of killing other people. The ethics of killing might make for an interesting topic, so why not propose a thread about it in the "proposed new topics" section of the site, if that's what you're interested in discussing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
fgarb writes: My question to atheists is, assuming you're right and the universe is entirely governed by logic with no supernatural phenomena, why does it follow that when you die you will no longer exist? As with others, I agree that this doesn't necessarily follow. The evidence we have points to "no longer existing" in this universe/reality. However, that's also exactly what we'ed expect to see if we somehow end up existing in some other universe/reality, or even in this one again, at some as-yet-unknown repetition cycle that goes beyond human history. My official answer is that I don't know, and when my time comes, I'll welcome the new adventure.
A counterexample would be that if the universe is sufficiently large or infinite (which is certainly possible according to what is known of current cosmology unless I am well off my mark), then assuming the laws of physics are roughly constant over large distances, it is inevitable that you also exist elsewhere. Why does infinite imply repetition? The set of real numbers is infinite, yet there are no repetitions. Why (assuming an infinite universe) must our reality include repetition simply because it's infinite? You seem to imply that this is the case "assuming the laws of physics are roughly constant over large distances". But, if this is your reasoning, wouldn't the laws of physics necessarily have to be exactly constant over large distances? And this would assume that we have knowledge of all the laws of physics of the entire universe. I think that given even one law we don't fully understand, or even a slight variance in any known laws over large distances we'ed then have no requirement of duplication over an infinite space. In short, I agree that your counterexample is valid in an infinite universe, but only if we fully understand all physical laws of the universe, and that they do not vary by any (even a very tiny) amount.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5799 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
Recon3rd writes
quote:Many Christians I know usually complain that other people just don't stand up to their moral standards. Here is an example where a Christian's moral standard is considered lacking by the evil atheist side. quote:You always purposely miss other people's points like this? quote:You always purposely miss other people's points like this? The hitting other kids was simply an analogy to demonstrate that there are moral values we as human beings can come to without the aid of a vengeful God watching over our shoulders. Another example is slavery. For thousands of years, it was perfectly fine to enslave other people. Religion had no problem with it. Humanity had to wait for the Age of Reason to come to realize that slavery was evil. The realization of human right didn't spawn from religious revelation. It came directly from human reason. To attribute the idea of human right to religion or the worship of God is plagarism.
quote:Because I was a child. I was incapable of telling the difference between right and wrong. Unless you are suggesting that this child-like mentality stays with us throughout our lives, I see no point in having a vengeful God watching over our shoulders to keep us in line. quote:I never claimed to know. However, I do get the impression from your subtle implications that you believe morals come from belief in God. Unfortunately for you, history disagrees with you on this. quote:Yes, and we call these adults who can't distinguish between good and evil sociopaths. quote:Whether moral is subjective or not, I think, is less of an issue as realizing what's moral and what's immoral. I know this statement doesn't make any sense, but that's the best I've got right now. I'm sure I'll come up with something less nonsensible later on. quote:A believer in what Christ symbolizes. A believer in beyond faith belief in Christ.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5799 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
Recon3rd writes
quote:All computers are related to each other. They came from the same engineering idea. They all are made of the same stuff. They all share the same language. And yet we place different values on them. The notion that just because two things are somehow remotely related therefore they should equal in value is rediculous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
From the OP. (I assume someone here remembers the OP)
My question to atheists is, assuming you're right and the universe is entirely governed by logic with no supernatural phenomena, why does it follow that when you die you will no longer exist? A counterexample would be that if the universe is sufficiently large or infinite (which is certainly possible according to what is known of current cosmology unless I am well off my mark), then assuming the laws of physics are roughly constant over large distances, it is inevitable that you also exist elsewhere. Then when you die you will still exist, just in a different location. First, if the universe is infinite (or just really, really, really big) in extent then there is a real possibility that some combination of particles in some far off stretch of space is configured pretty much the same as am I. Is this me? No. I have no memory of any experience outside this one tiny stretch of space. I do not share a consciousness with this doppelganger and have no reason to believe I live some other life elsewhere with it. For the sake of the OP let me take two cases. If my doppelganger(s) exist(s) then either we have precisely the exact same set of experiences, past, present and future or we experience differences in our lives. If the experiences are different, since I have no such memories and appear to share no connection to whatever experiences the doppelganger experiences, then the doppelganger is not me but experiences his own life, consciousness and all, outside any knowledge or connection to me. We are not two manifestations of the same consciousness but are two separate living individuals. Upon my death what happens to my consciousness has no effect on the doppelganger and visa versa. If, however, my doppelganger and I share the exact same consciousness and experiences in every detail from the most significant to the most mundane then my death becomes his death and “we” no longer exist. Second, as an atheist, what is death? On a human level death is the cessation of the organized electro-chemical activity of the brain. When this activity ceases there is no longer an apparatus of perception, feeling or consciousness. The energy that once operated this apparatus diffuses into the surrounding environment adding to local entropy. And, I hope in my case, the matter remaining will be loosened upon the planet through cremation bits of which to be recycled in any other forms of life that are not hornets, bees, wasps or democrats. I used to argue that ones death is the same oblivion as prior to ones life. But as living conscious beings we can never appreciate the totality of such a void. We try to imagine what oblivion “feels” like. It is something we cannot fathom, cannot wrap any of our experiences or imaginations around. But that is from whence we came and to whence we will return. From dust to dust. I understand religionists cannot (will not) comprehend this but the reproductive mechanisms of this species are such that I, we, all of us, have won the lotto big time. We have actually had the opportunity to live. The great vast majority of people that could have been never got that chance. In death there is a celebration. Unlike all those hundreds of billions of others, I got to experience life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
My question to atheists is, assuming you're right and the universe is entirely governed by logic with no supernatural phenomena, why does it follow that when you die you will no longer exist? A counterexample would be that if the universe is sufficiently large or infinite (which is certainly possible according to what is known of current cosmology unless I am well off my mark), then assuming the laws of physics are roughly constant over large distances, it is inevitable that you also exist elsewhere. Then when you die you will still exist, just in a different location. I will no longer exist, but the $2.89 worth of Hygrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, carbon etc. will. And will be recycled into whatever it will. But as for me, whatever it is that separates me from the mineral world will cease, at death. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fgarb Member (Idle past 5391 days) Posts: 98 From: Naperville, IL Joined: |
Stile writes: Why does infinite imply repetition? The set of real numbers is infinite, yet there are no repetitions. Why (assuming an infinite universe) must our reality include repetition simply because it's infinite? I agree, infinite does not imply repetition. The argument I was making is that something which has a nonzero probability of happening somewhere (even if it is really amazingly tiny) is guaranteed to happen somewhere if the universe is infinite.
Stile writes: In short, I agree that your counterexample is valid in an infinite universe, but only if we fully understand all physical laws of the universe, and that they do not vary by any (even a very tiny) amount. Sure, if the laws of physics change elsewhere then the probability may drop to zero, in which case my argument is void. Do the laws change over large distances? I have no idea and neither does anyone else at this point. Future experiments may tell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fgarb Member (Idle past 5391 days) Posts: 98 From: Naperville, IL Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes: For the sake of the OP let me take two cases ... If the experiences are different, since I have no such memories and appear to share no connection to whatever experiences the doppelganger experiences, then the doppelganger is not me but experiences his own life, consciousness and all, outside any knowledge or connection to me. Assuming memory and experiences are encoded chemically/electrically in the human body (that is, no supernatural element), then in the example I used previously the experiences are identical between the two individuals and this first case is not applicable.
AZPaul3 writes: If, however, my doppelganger and I share the exact same consciousness and experiences in every detail from the most significant to the most mundane then my death becomes his death and “we” no longer exist. If you are the same at the time of death then that is true. If you are the same at some point before the death of one, then it does not follow that the other dies as well. Consider a person named Joe A on March the 12th, 2009 at 12:09 pm. On March the 12th, 2009 at 12:11 pm, an entity with an almost identical electrochemical makeup to Joe A, existing in an almost identical place (we'd usually call him the same person, but let's be more general and call him Joe B) gets run over by a cement mixer and is no longer "living". That which is Joe A may exist elsewhere in the universe, and we would call him "living". So may Joe B, who is not "living".
AZPaul3 writes: As an atheist, what is death? One of the reasons I started this thread was because this is an idea I wanted to explore. It's way too hard for me to wrap my mind around right now, though, and my brain is already fried from work, so I think I'll have to punt on this one. It's almost as hard as the related question, "what is life"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fgarb Member (Idle past 5391 days) Posts: 98 From: Naperville, IL Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: I will no longer exist, but the $2.89 worth of Hygrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, carbon etc. will. And will be recycled into whatever it will. But as for me, whatever it is that separates me from the mineral world will cease, at death. In that case, how do you define "I" in a way that is not satisfied by your electrochemical clone? Remember, we're assuming nothing supernatural for the sake of this argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Recon3rd Member (Idle past 5842 days) Posts: 35 Joined: |
t4c-
All computers are related to each other. They came from the same engineering idea. They all are made of the same stuff. They all share the same language. And yet we place different values on them. The notion that just because two things are somehow remotely related therefore they should equal in value is rediculous. They came from the same IDEA, they are not all made of the same STUFF and they do share a common language. The different monetary value is related to the amount/quality of the hardware/software thats installed inside the box. A computer isn't a life form, if life started from one organism and blossomed into all life we see today then we are connected to that original organism of life. peace
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024